' Through this petition order dated 5-12-2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Zhob in Case No,41 of 2000 was challenged and prayed that proceedings in the case be quashed by acquitting the petitioner from the charge.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondents/complainants made a written complaint on 21-3-2000 before political Agent Zhob, against the accused/petitioners for taking legal action, as they have made firing on the complainant party and demolished their certain Mina-Jaat (hutments), hand of one Sobedar was also broken, in between the night of 19th/20th March, 2000.
Prayer was also made for forfeiture of peace sureties of the petitioners. On the said complaint F.I.R.
Tehsildar Zhob, investigation was carried out and then after challan was submitted against the petitioners on 16-5-2000, before Judicial Magistrate Zhob, Accused/petitioners were summoned on 12-8-2000, charge was read over, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On 4-9-2000 petitioners filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.0 before learned Judicial Magistrate Zhob rejoinder was filed on behalf of respondent learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing the parties rejected the application vide his order, dated 5-12-2000, hence this petition was preferred.
3. Mr. Basharatullah Advocate, learned counsel for petitioners contended that complainant/respondent No,2 Mir flazar Khan was not present in Zhob, when F.1.R was lodged, the respondent No,2 has falsely been introduced as complainant in the F.I.R and his signature found in the F.I.R are fake and even during proceedings of the case respondent No,2 failed to appear before the trial Court. lie further contended that a joint complaint was filed by respondents Nos.2 to 8 before the Political Agent Zhob, in contravention of law and procedure, therefore, proceedings on such complaint are without any lawful authority. The F.I.R was recorded on the basis of complaint which was not signed by any of the cop.Plainant. Tehsildar Zhob has no authority to register the F.I.R on the basis of complaint made to Political Agent Zhob. He next argued that Judicial Magistrate acted unlawfully by reading the charge in respect of six offences under P.P.C, as there was no material available on record against the accused/petitioners; hence it is abuse of the process of Court to proceed further with the case.
4. Syed Iqbal Shah, Advocate, appeared on behalf of private respondents argued, in fact the complaint was made to Political Agent Zhob for taking legal action against the petitioners and he rightly marked the same to Assistant Commissioner Zhob, who sent the complaint to Tehsildar for registration of F.I.R and after necessary investigation it was found a fit case for trial, therefore, challan of the same was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate Zhob, who after perusal of record summoned the accused/petitioners and then charge was read over to them, on denial of the same P.W.1 Malik Mir Hazar Khan and P.W .2 Nazar Khan appeared and deposed against the accused/petitioners for committing the alleged offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate rightly rejected tl'e application filed under section 249-A,. Cr. P .C. , having without any substance.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. It was argued that respondent Mir Hazar Khan was not present in Zhob and in spite of 4/5 hewing of the case, he did not make his appearance before the trial Court, and his name in F.I.R. Has falsely been introduced as complainant. Record reveals that P.W. Malik Mir Hazar Khan did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate and got recorded his statement by involving the accused/petitioners with the commission of alleged offence, and on his complaint F.I.R. Was got registered in his presence. Since complaint was marked to Tehsildar on the basis of which in presence of Malik Mir Hazar Khan F.I.R was registered, on completion of investigation challan was submitted before trial Court, and charge was read over, nothing has been done in violation of law. There are no illegalities or irregularities on the basis of which the proceedings ordered to be quashed. Since trial has been commenced and certain prosecution witnesses have been examined, at this stage quashment of proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the complainant party. It was agitated by the learned counsel for petitioner that joint complaint was filed, therefore, the same is not tenable in the eye of law. In my opinion complaint is a mere information to set the law in motion, Tehsildar after getting information started with investigation. There is no legal bar or hard and fast rule that an information or complaint should be made by only one person. Learned trial Court after perusal of record and evidence rightly concluded that the grounds taken in the application are not enough for dismissal of the case, and acquittal of the petitioners, complainant appeared before trial Court and verified his signatures on the complaint lodged against the accused/petitioners. The arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner that there is no evidence against the petitioner available on record that is not icceptable. In fact two witnesses appeared and got recorded their statements on oath and deposed against the accused/petitioners for having been involved in the alleged offence.
For what has been discussed hereinabove, I am, not inclined to admit this petition for regular hearing in order to quash the proceedings. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.